[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Trying not to quote the entire post but not succeeding very well:
John 6:32-35 “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

This would be closer to having a discussion about groceries bought from a grocery store than about the process of making bread. But even the fact that the groceries came from a store would be irrelevant. The passage is talking about receiving a kind of nourishment from Jesus. It is in contrast to what Moses was thought to have given, but is now given by God and it came down from heaven. If it comes down from heaven, the process of man making bread becomes irrelevant.

But without going into all of this about making bread, just read the one verse. “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me. . . .” I do not need to be educated on what processes made that bread. I need to come to Christ. To do otherwise would almost be like that silly story from the old Stream magazine about hunky and Dory studying food rather than eating it. It might be relevant to point out that this story was designed to over-focus on “eating” and to despise reading and studying. But there clearly is a place for eating, and this is it. There is no “work” required to come to Christ and eat. There is no degree in breadology required.
You may be right. In some cases. But you don’t seem to want to give the plain understanding a chance. I don’t see the need for understanding bread-making for this reference. It is a distraction from the very meaningful words on the page.
All relevant to a discussion on the Passover pattern/requirement to purge out the leaven. That is not this discussion unless you want to bring in something that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Thank you. It is good that you don’t have a problem with it. In fact, it is very good, because that is what it is about. It is not just “part of the story.” It is the story. Jesus said to scatter the seed. Don’t pre-think about where it is landing. Let the soil do its part. Man’s free will must come into play. You don’t know their will, so plant it and let it run its course. Each man has his own concerns and distractions. If he is ultimately not receptive, that is his problem, not yours. Sow the seed.

Yes. Where the seed takes hold and grows, there will be a harvest. And some of it will still grow differently from some other. Still the issue is the soil. It is not really about the harvest. The disciples are being charged to sow without pre-thinking the harvest. To do so would be to refuse the opportunity for one heart/mind/will/soul to face the gospel and let it take root, or let it be devoured by the birds.

Nothing about flour. Nothing about leaven. Nothing about eating.
Because it was the first place that the whole discussion was going. What was actually in the parables was being (and continues to be) overrun by discussions about things somewhere else in scripture that might be relevant, and about presumptions of strained meanings for terms based upon their use in a different metaphorical context in another passage, some of them even by another writer.
And a pretty strong evidence that getting too tied-up in discussing the process of using leaven in bread making was not the point. Bread was not the point. A warning about what the Pharisees were adding to the word was the point. It was simply about the thing added. Jesus didn’t even comment on what the outcome of accepting their additions would do. The Pharisees are pulling a bait-and-switch. You think you are getting sound scriptural advice. You are not. It has non-scriptural, and more importantly, unscriptural content. Watch for it.
It is not relevant because, in the context of the one parable that even mentioned leaven, the rising of the dough was not mentioned. The baking was not mentioned. The time factor was not mentioned. It is simply pointed out that a little of something is added to a lot of something else and then kneaded until that little bit is mixed throughout. It is not totally ridiculous to consider where that leads. And leaven added to flour is a great example of this. But you should at least start with the part that is actually mentioned. To rush in with living yeast, fermentation, the Passover, is to blow by what is actually said and skip on to something else. This started with a mention of the parable in Matt 13. The notion that the leaven was something questionable, maybe bad, and possibly quite evil that was introduced. I turn the reading back to what the words actually say — that the kingdom is the leaven in the context and therefore clearly not questionable, bad or evil. And there is a quick rush to make it about something else — fermentation, bread making, etc. Where did the consideration for what the parable actually says go?
I see it as so because you spent an important portion of your life hearing this kind of “exposition.” Even if you had problems with some of it, you stayed around it for a long time. It gets into you. I know because I saw it in me. Almost 20 years after leaving the LRC. You may have heard little directly from Lee other than in a training or in his books. But that was his way. There were way too many passages that would seem to be contrary to his kind of thinking that he either glossed over and moved along as if “nothing to see here. Move along.” Or he gave almost no opportunity to contemplate the verses as they were in their own context, but instead rushed in “God’s economy,” “Christ and the church,” or some other overlay to rephrase and reinterpret the passage.
Then why is 1 Cor. 5 and Exodus quickly rushed out to reinterpret “leaven” in Matt 13? Why are the words “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . .” immediately presumed to mean that something evil is added to the kingdom when the words say that the kingdom is added to something else? (You were not the source of this. But you have rushed in with a discussion about the process of making bread.)

This thread “I am interested in what others think about the introduction of leaven into the assemblies” and this was asked in the context of Matt 13, and the parable of the woman that hid leaven in the dough.

You responded that in Matt 13 the term leaven in the parable is equated with the kingdom of God, “the kingdom of God is like”. Your point was that contrary to the teaching of WL, leaven here is not something negative.

In my response, agreeing that leaven is not something negative, I referred to the bread of life. Although I did not give a specific Bible reference, the term is from John 6.

You respond “the bread of life is not about fermentation but nutritional content that sustains life”. Later you say that you are speaking of the scriptural reference and I am off talking about making bread. (Let’s get real, “nutritional content” is not a scriptural reference, it is a concept ingrained by large food companies to make things like “fortified” or “enriched” look better, even though they have a shelf life of months and are dead).

So, let’s look at the Bible’s use of the term “bread of life”. You quote John 6:32-35, but do not quote John 6:48 “I am the bread of life”. The term is used twice in the Bible, from John 6:35 and then in John 6:48. How can you possibly ignore the verses in between? In those verses 3 times the Lord says “all that the Father has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day”, and 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. and then again 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now anyone who makes bread finds it very difficult not to read these verses and not see the process of making bread and the two risings of bread as part of the analogy. Please note, for those not familiar with the process, bread is allowed to rise once and then beat down, and it is after the second rising that it is baked. Jesus is the Bread of Life, and everyone who believes on Him may have everlasting life.

This is why your writing comes across as arrogant. You think you are scriptural, but “nutritional content” is not scriptural, rather it comes straight from the mouth of corporate america so that you will ignore the fact that your bread is now dead. Then you say “I do not need to be educated on what processes made that bread” and totally miss the Lord’s references to this process.

Next point -- “All relevant to a discussion on the Passover pattern/requirement to purge out the leaven. That is not this discussion unless you want to bring in something that is irrelevant to the discussion.”

The discussion is “re: the introduction of leaven”. The discussion is over what exactly is the introduction of leaven into the dough in the parable in Matt 13. Is the leaven symbolic of sin (as taught by WL), or is it symbolic of the Kingdom of God (as taught by OBW), etc. But the discussion is not solely on leaven, it is on “the introduction” of leaven (see the first post). My point strikes right at the heart of this discussion since I am pointing out that the leaven will always get into the bread, regardless of whether the woman hides it in there or not.

Next point -- The parable of the sower sowing the seed -- you say “It is not just “part of the story.” It is the story.”

When you say “It is the story” are you referring to the New Testament? The New Testament is a story of a sower who went forth to sow? Or are you referring to the gospel. The gospel is a story of a sower that went forth to sow? Or are you referring to Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew is a story about a sower who went forth to sow? Or are you referring to Matthew chapter 13, the story of the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven begins with a sower who went forth to sow. You think these verses live completely cut off from the rest of the book in isolation? The concept is amazing to me, I thought that everyone who read this parable could see the broader applications. To pretend that these verses need to be cut off from the rest of the chapter, from the rest of the book of Matthew, and literally looked at in isolation is mind boggling to me because if you were to truly do that it would be meaningless. Do you mean that I cannot interpret that the sower here is Jesus? That this parable is describing what Jesus did in His ministry and also describes what many others have done in there ministry? The parable doesn’t say that, but I have yet to meet anyone that doesn’t understand it that way.

You seem to explain this aversion because the discussion was heading in a particular direction and you didn’t want to get it sidetracked with extraneous discussion. How can anyone conclude how to understand the allegorical meaning of Leaven if you are only going to look at one mention of the term? The Bible tells us no verse is of its own interpretation, you have to use the Bible to understand the Bible. The question very relevant to your discussion was this “If leaven does not have a negative connotation, then why does it appear to do so in so many other places.” Your explanation that one term can have several meanings is quite unsatisfactory. It is extremely unpalatable to me that in one place Leaven could mean sin, and in another it could mean Kingdom of Heaven. To me that would be similar to Christ referring to Jesus in one place and the AntiChrist in another. Therefore, I felt it was important to show that leaven doesn’t mean sin. To do that you have to go to the most significant mention of leaven, the purging of leaven at the time of passover and discuss that. What exactly does it mean to purge out the old leaven, why do they eat unleavened bread for one week, etc.

Next point -- “beware the leaven of the pharisees”

OBW -- "And a pretty strong evidence that getting too tied-up in discussing the process of using leaven in bread making was not the point. Bread was not the point. A warning about what the Pharisees were adding to the word was the point. It was simply about the thing added. Jesus didn’t even comment on what the outcome of accepting their additions would do. The Pharisees are pulling a bait-and-switch. You think you are getting sound scriptural advice. You are not. It has non-scriptural, and more importantly, unscriptural content. Watch for it."

The Pharisees are not pulling a bait and switch. This is where we differ, and the reason is that we have a different understanding of what the term leaven means. If the disciples were confused by the term leaven, doesn’t that prove that Jesus was using the term allegorically? Clearly leaven was not typically understood to mean teaching, so therefore to understand what the Lord is saying it is crucial to understand the term leaven and why it would be used in reference to teaching. What you are doing in this thread is “leaven”, you are taking the pure word of God, quoting it, and then interpreting it, and that is becoming a teaching. That is the analogy. Often you are looking for “old leaven” teaching that is old. In fact, in this thread you challenge the old notion of leaven signifying sin. He does not accuse the Pharisees of not teaching from the word of God, nowhere does the Lord ever say that. Instead, He says “you search the scriptures but you won’t come to me”. That is the old leaven. Now that Christ has come and become our passover it is time to purge out the old leaven. The new leaven is faith in Christ. All of this misunderstanding is because you are not familiar with sour dough and how once a year you should make a new batch.

Next Point -- I took issue with you saying my use of looking at the context of Matt 13 was based on WL teaching. In your discussion you said --

Then why is 1 Cor. 5 and Exodus quickly rushed out to reinterpret “leaven” in Matt 13? Why are the words “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . .” immediately presumed to mean that something evil is added to the kingdom when the words say that the kingdom is added to something else?

We both know the answer to this. Small minded people cannot accept when their concepts are wrong. But the reason they made the mistake in the first place was not because 1 Cor 5 and Exodus were not relevant to an understanding of leaven, but because they misunderstood what the term “purge out the old leaven” meant. Think about it, every day you make bread (let’s say pancakes) using the sour dough starter on the stove. Do you really think that stuff is bad? It is what makes your bread delicious, and healthy, and “living”. Yet, once a year you go through a practice of throwing out the sour dough starter you have had for an entire year, and creating a new batch. Does this mean the old starter signified sin? No, it means we need a new beginning, a fresh new faith. You “solve” the issue by saying one term can have two meanings, but this doesn’t solve the issue, it leaves the original misconception in place.

Sorry, you probably made more points after this but I lost interest. If I am missing something important please bring it to my attention.